Holding

The condition imposed by the High Court was unreasonable; the order granting anticipatory bail was set aside and the matter remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration.

Summary

The appellants, accused of forging documents and cheating a complainant of Rs.62.62 lakh in a property transaction, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC. The Madras High Court granted bail on the condition that they deposit title deeds worth Rs.20 lakh and furnish a personal bond. The Supreme Court held that this condition was unreasonable and that the High Court had not properly considered the gravity of the offences or the entire factual matrix. Relying on precedents that prohibit onerous conditions for bail, the Court set aside the High Court order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The appeal was consequently disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the condition imposed by the High Court (deposit of title deeds worth Rs.20 lakh) as a precedent to grant anticipatory bail is lawful and reasonable.
Whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion under Section 438 of the CrPC considering the gravity of the offences alleged.
Whether anticipatory bail can be granted with such onerous conditions in cases involving alleged fraud and misrepresentation.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 438
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B, s. 419, s. 420, s. 466, s. 467, s. 468, s. 471

Subjects

anticipatory bailSection 438unreasonable conditionbail discretionCriminal Procedureproperty fraudmisrepresentation

Judgment

[2009] 3 S.C.R. 990

A I. GLASKASDEN GRACE & ORS. ~
v.
INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR.
.....
(Criminal Appeal No. 419 of 2009)

MARCH 3, 2009
B
[S.B, SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 438 -
Anticipatory bail - Grant of - Case registered u/ss. 120 B,
c 466, 467, 468, 471, 419 and 420-Application for anticipatory
bail -i Grant of, by High Court subject to the applicants
depositing title deeds of property worth Rs. 20, 00, 0001-
standing in their name or in the name of third party -
Correctness of - Held: Order of High Court was very
D unreasonable - It should have considered the entire facts of
the case including gravity of offence alleged - Hence, matter
remitted back to High Court to consider the prayer afresh.

The question which arose for consideration in this
appeal was whether the High Court was justified in
E
imposing a condition requiring the appellants to deposit
title deeds of property worth Rs.20,00,000/- standing in
their name or in the name of third parties while granting ~

them anticipatory bail in the case registered against them ,

-
u/ss. 120 B, 466-468, 471 and 420 IPC.
F
Disposing of the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The facts and circumstances of the case
indicated that receipt of Rs. 62,62,000/- towards sale
consideration of the property was alleged to be on
G
misre1presentation of the fact by the appellants. It is
,..
disclosed that the said property originally belonged to
some other person. The allegations made are serious as
•
it is alleged that accused/appellants conspired and
H 990
I. GLASKASDEN GRACE & ORS. v. INSPECTOR OF 991
POLICE & ANR.
-r- forged the encumbrance certificate and impersonated A
themselves as original owners of the house sites and
cheated the respondent No.2-complainant to the tune of
Rs.62,62,0001- by preparing a false sale deed and getting
it registered in favour of respondent No.2. [Paras 13 and
14] [995-D-F] B
1.2. The High Court passed the impugned order with
,,' the intention of protecting the interest of the complainant
in the matter. The approach of the High Court was
incorrect as under the impugned order a very reasonable
and onerous condition was laid down by the Court as a
c
•'
condition precedent for grant of anticipatory bail. It is not
disclosed from the record that the High Court considered
the entire facts of the case in proper perspective and
• proceeded to dispose of the prayer for anticipatory bail
~
oblivious of the facts of the case and contrary to correct D
legal position with regard to law relating to grant of
anticipatory bail. The High Court should have considered
the entire facts of the case including the gravity of the
offence alleged and in the light thereof should have
considered the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. Thus, E
the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted
;. back to the High Court to consider the prayer for
~
anticipatory bail of the appellants afresh in accordance
with law taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case including the gravity of the F
·"
offence alleged and analyzing the prayer of the
appellants. [Paras 15, 17 and 18] [995-G-H; 997-A-D]

Amarjit Singh vs. State of NCT of Delhi JT 2002(1) SC
291 and Sandeep Jain vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi G
2002 (2) sec 66, referred to.
:J ~
~
Case Law Reference:
JT 2002(1) SC 291 Referred to Para 16
H
992 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.

A (2000) 2 sec 66 Referred to Para 16 -\
CRIMINAL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 419 of 2009.
-
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.7.08 of the High
B Court Judicature at Madras in Criminal O.P. No. 16601/2008.

K.K. Mani, C.K.R. Lenin Sekar and Mayur R. Shah for the
Appellants.

V. Kanagaraj, Promila, S. Thananjayan, Gurukrishna
c Kumar and Srikala Gurukrishna Kumar for the Respondent. •.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. Leave granted.
D .
2. The present appeal is filed by the appellants being
aggrieved by a part of the direction contained in the Order
dated 2.9.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of the
Punjab & Haryana High Court in Criminal Original Petition No.
21442 of 2008 whereby the High Court allowed the application
E filed by the appellants under Section 438 of the Code of
Cririninal Procedure, 1973 (for short the "Code") and granted
the relief of anticipatory bail as prayed for on the alleged
grounds of imposing conditions which are unreasonable as ~

submitted before us.
F
.,
' 3. A complaint was filed by one B. Nagalakshmi W/o
Balagovindarajulu, Complainant - Respondent No. 2 contending
inter alia that she approached one M. Mani, a land broker, for
the purchase of house sites bearing Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12 in
G Sa~i West Extension, Vilakrichi Village, Sern Nagar,
Coimbatore. Mani informed that K. Sakthivel is the owner of -I'
site No. 12, and other site owners reside at Tiruppur and •
Selvapuram. Encumbrance Certificate issued by the Sub-
Registrar and sale deed of 4 sites were shown, which reflected
H that the land were in the name of appellants. K. Sakthivel made
I. GLASKASDEN GRACE & ORS. v. INSPECTOR OF 993
POLICE & ANR. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

f- assurance to the complainant that he will arrange for the sale A
of the four sites to her by the site owners by making them to
execute a sale deed in her favour. The total sale amount for
the four sites was fixed at Rs. 62,62,000/-. As alleged when
the complainant came forward to tender white money for the
entire amount, the accused Sakthivel asked her to tender white B
money only for Rs. 7,72,700/- and the rest in black, and
represented that he would execute the sale deed in her favour
r only then. Accordingly, she had parted a sum of Rs. 7,72,700/
- through four demand drafts and cash of Rs. 54,89,300/- to the
accused, on the day of registration and got the sale deed c
executed in her favour on 15.05.2007. Subsequently, on
03.06.2007 when the respondent No. 2 attempted to put up a
boundary around the land, she came to know that the said four
sites originally belonged to some other person.
~
j 4. It further transpires that accused/appellants conspired D
and forged the encumbrance certificate and impersonated
themselves as original owners of the house sites, prepared a
false sale deed and registered the same in favour of
complainant and cheated the complainant to the tune of Rs.
62,62,000/-. E

5. On receipt of the aforesaid complaint, a case was
registered treating the said complaint as the First Information
.. Report .
F
6. The appellants herein apprehending their arrest in the
aforesaid case registered under Sections 1208, 466, 467, 468,
471, 419 and 420 IPC filed a petition in the High Court under
Section 438 of the Code seeking anticipatory bail.

7. On perusal of the submissions made and material on G
-f record, the High Court passed an order granting anticipatory
• bail as prayed for on condition that in the event of arrest, the
appellants shall be enlarged on bail on their depositing the title
deeds of property worth Rs. 20,00,000/- standing either in their
name or in the name of third parties and also on their executing H
994 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 3 S.C.R.

A a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties for the -\
likesum to his satisfaction.

8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellants
approached this Court on the ground that the conditions
Imposed by the High Court while granting anticipatory bail are
B
not only unreasonable and onerous but the same also amounts
to putting a fetter on the right of appellants being admitted to
bail, in terms of the order passed.

9. The said petition filed by the appellants was placed
c ~efore this Court whereupon inter alia the following order was
passed on 13.8.2008.

"Issue notice.

However, it is made clear that, in the event, it is found that .._
D the petitioners are not otherwise entitled to grant of an
order of anticipatory bail, this Court may pass an
appropriate order.

In the meantime, only that portion of the order whereby
E conditions have been imposed for grant of anticipatory bail
other than those contained in Sub-section (2) of Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall remain .,,
stayed.
~

F
..........
10. Notice was issued to respondents and therefore, the
matter was listed for hearing before us on which we heard the
learned counsel appearing for the parties at length.

G 11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants
submitted before us that the conditions imposed by the High
Court while granting anticipatory bail to the appellants were not
only onerous but also unreasonable. It was also submitted that
conditions imposed by the High Court for granting anticipatory
H bail on their deposit of title deeds of property worth Rs.
I. GLASKASDEN GRACE & ORS. v. INSPECTOR OF 995
POLICE & ANR. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.)
J
..-- 20,00,000/- standing either in their name or in the name of third A
parties amounts to putting a fetter on the order granting
anticipatory bail as the appellants are unable to satisfy the
~ conditions which are beyond their means and powers.

12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent,
B
• however, submitted that the aforesaid pre-conditions put by the
Court for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants were called
' for and justified in the facts and circumstances of the present
' case. It was also pointed out that the appellants intentionally and
knowing fully well the entire position and actual ownership of
the property misrepresented the fact and cheated the c
complainant and therefore, such conditions were required to be
,; put up for grant of anticipatory bail to the said persons.
"" 13. In the light of the aforesaid submissions by the counsel
•
i
appearing for the parties, we have also considered the records
placed before us. The facts and circumstances of the case
D

when analysed have indicated that receipt of Rs. 62,62,000/-
towards sale consideration of the property was alleged to be
on misrepresentation of the fact by the appellants herein.
E
14. It is disclosed that the said property originally belonged
to some other person. The allegations made are serious as it
is alleged that accused/appellants conspired and forged the
encumbrance certificate and impersonated themselves as
~
original owners of the house sites and cheated the respondent
No. 2 (complainant) to the tune of Rs. 62,62,000/- by preparing F
a false sale deed and getting it registered in favour of
Respondent No. 2.

15. It appears that in the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, the High Court passed the impugned order with G
the intention of protecting the interest of the complainant in the
-t
1 matter., In our considered opinion the approach of the High
Court was incorrect as under the impugned order a very
unreasonable and onerous condition has been laid down by the
Court as a condition precedent for grant of anticipatory bail. H
996 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 3 S.C.R.

A 16. This Court in Amarjit Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, .\
reported in JT 2002 ( 1) SC 291, held as under:-

"4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the ,-.
present case, we have no hesitation in coming to the \

conclusion that the imposition of condition to deposit the
B
sum of Rs. 15 lacks in the form of FDR in the Trial Court ...
is an unreasonable condition and, therefore, we set aside
the said condition as a condition precedent for granting
anticipatory bail to the accused/appellant. ...... "

c In Sandeep Jain v. National Capital Terriotry of Delhi,
reported in (2000) 2 sec 66, this court held that:

"4. We are unable to appreciate even the first order .....
)..
passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate imposing the
D onerous condition that an accused at the FIR stage should
pay a huge sum of Rs. 2 lakhs to be set at liberty. If he •
had paid it is a different matter. But the fact that he was
not able to pay that amount and in default thereof he is to
languish in jail for more than 10 months now, is sufficient
indication that he was unable to make up the amount. Can ;~

E
he be detained in custody endlessly for his inability to pay
the amount in the range of Rs. 2 lakhs. If the cheques
issued by his surety were dishonoured, the Court could
perhaps have taken it as a ground to suggest to the payee
of the cheques to resort to his legal remedies provided by .
F .law. Similarly if the court was dissatisfied with the conduct
of the surety as for his failure to raise funds for honouring
the cheques issued by him, the court could have directed
the appellant to substitute him with another surety. But to
keep him in prison for such a long period, that too in a
G case where bail would normally be granted for the offences
alleged, is not only hard but improper. It must be
remembered that the Court has not even come to the
.
conclusion that the allegations made in the FIR are true.
That can be decided only when the trial concludes, if the
H case is charge-sheeted by the police".
I. GLASKASDEN GRACE & ORS. v. INSPECTOR OF 997
POLICE & ANR. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.] .

I- 17. It is not disclosed from the record that the High Court A
considered the entire facts of the case in proper perspective
and proceeded to dispose of the prayer for anticipatory bail
oblivious of the facts of the case and contrary to correct legal
position with regard to law relating to grant of anticipatory bail.
The High Court should have considered the entire facts of the B
case including the gravity of the offence alleged and in the light
thereof should have considered the prayer for grant of
.<
anticipatory bail. In that view of the matter, we feel that the entire
order passed by the High Court is required to be set aside and
the matter to be reconsidered in accordance with law and in c
terms of observations made herein.

18. We accordingly, set aside the impugned order and
remit back the matter to the High Court to consider the prayer
for anticipatory bail of the appellants afresh in accordance with
law taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the D
case including the gravity of the offence alleged and analysing
the prayer of the appellants whether to grant or not to grant the
prayer for anticipatory bail. The High Court shall dispose of the
matter in accordance with law, giving reasons for its decision,
as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six E
weeks from the date of the communication of this order.

19. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

N.J. Appeal disposed of.
F